My parents have an Alexa and I have no choice in whether they install one in our house or not. I doubt they would be convinced by my pleas about privacy. So unfortunately and reduction in whatever privacy that was left is a shame.

i’m sure they will appreciate your BSD 2 Clause contributions at Microsoft HQ

explaining the difference between a Toyota and a Honda

It’s proprietary so, no thanks.

systemd is an init system and just has not played the same role in the development of GNU/Linux distributions like GNU has. before systemd there was sysvinit, and there are number of alternate init systems. It’s not about system functionality that we name operating systems.

Uh no, it’s not. GNU has been integral to the GNU/Linux project for years. Without GCC, coreutils, glibc, there would be no linux distributions. Systemd has not played the same role.

Debian GNU/Linux has been called Debian GNU/Linux since at least 1997 https://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/1997/msg00013.html

The ideal would be a locked boot system that is installed by the user and is fully under their control, but I have yet to encounter one.

https://libreboot.org/docs/linux/grub_hardening.html

deleted by creator

The USSR was just as capitalist as the PRC. Because it had generalized commodity production and wage-labor. You can’t have a socialist mode of production in just one country, as the interaction with capitalist countries will infect your system.

The PRC is a highly technocratic advanced capitalist democracy, and yes, it will likely outpace the west in a number of key statistics over time, that doesn’t make it socialist, because the productive mode is capitalism.

Taiwan will voluntarily reunify with China in the next two decades.

We will either switch to a socialist mode of production or die

The only way to accomplish that is with international socialism

The word communism, literally means, a classless, stateless, moneyless society, that fulfills the principle “from each according to their ability to each according to their need”. That’s what the word means, do you dispute this definition?

Definitionally according to whom? Who defined it? What were their qualifications? Based on what evidence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#History

I cannot think of a single great civilization from history that reached communism of as a stage of development before the 20th century. Please name one or two. If it is a stage of civilizational development, you should be able to demonstrate that.

Again, does the fact there were times in human history before capitalism, with no knowledge or experience of capitalism, somehow make capitalism not a thing? Can something be defined only after it is seen?

The word communism, literally means, a classless, stateless, moneyless society, that fulfills the principle “from each according to their ability to each according to their need”. That’s what the word means, do you dispute this definition?

Very kind comment. Definitionally, communism describes a stage of civilizational development, what study do I need to prove that? That’s literally what the word means.

Capitalism is a mode of production. The next mode of production after capitalism will be socialism.

Does the fact capitalism didn’t exist in certain periods of human history mean it literally could not exist in the future? Communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless society, fufilling the principle, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” The argument is that communism will be achieved through an incredibly productive socialist economy, the problem with capitalism as a productive mode is that its internal contradictions make communism unreachable.

Communism is a stage of civilizational development, no “country” will ever reach it or has reached it. It will be international. It requires a highly advanced and productive industrial socialist economy to be realized.

Election where you can only vote for one party isn’t particularly democratic.

Why not? You vote. Parties are just an abstraction.

Neither is one with two parties, for that matter.

The more parties it has the more democratic it is? Please. Even in countries with advanced proportional representation schemes, you instead just get huge party alliances based on regionalism, and guess what, they remain capitalist bourgeoisie dictatorships.

The USSR was democratic, it was a capitalist democracy, like well, all modern democracies. Just because it came in a different form doesn’t make it somehow not democratic.